Comments on: No, You Don’t Have the Right to Marry Whomever You Lovehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyFri, 09 Dec 2016 22:34:51 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244690
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:46:56 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244690“For too much of history (and in too many parts of the world today), the consent of the woman/girl/child has been largely irrelevant.”.

True, but with rare exceptions we’re not in one of those parts of the world.

]]>By: Rob Tisinaihttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244685
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:38:32 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244685For too much of history (and in too many parts of the world today), the consent of the woman/girl/child has been largely irrelevant.

Dan Savage has a great video where he makes the point that same-sex marriage is a natural consequences of marriage redefinitions made by STRAIGHT people in the West (especially the easing up of legally-imposed gender roles).

]]>By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244671
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:19:51 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244671Well, maybe it doesn’t go without saying for you but I’m sure for the vast majority of people it does.
]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244635
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:11:03 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244635Well, no, Priya Lynn. It doesn’t go without saying. Which is precisely why I’m saying it. If it went without saying, then none of the silly non-consent arguments would be presented.

If one can “marry the person I love” that turn of phrase presumes that it is “I” who does the marrying. Consent is not present (with or without saying) in that phrase.

And the whole question of children is still present in that presumption. “Well, you can’t marry a child even if you love her!!” presumes that the will of the adult is the only thing in question.

All of these arguments are predicated on the presumption that a person (usually a man) marries something. That is a false presumption.

We would never say that in business “I can partner anyone I want”. That makes no sense. A partnership requires an agreement between more than one party.

So too with marriage.

When we take “I” to “we”, then all those child/animal/inanimate object issues are illustrated as being just as silly as they are.

But you may now have the last word.

]]>By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244509
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:22:47 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244509That consent is required goes without saying Timothy.
]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-244494
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:10:22 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-244494Perhaps the stupidest part of “right to marry who I love” is the “who I” part. No one, not one person, has the right to marry who they love.

Miles Standish did not have the right to marry Priscilla Mullen. John Hinkley did not have the right to marry Jody Foster. And none of the truly tacky contestants on The Bachelor have the right to marry the man they, well, whatever.

The right to marry who you love implies slavery, ownership. We do not have that right.

To marry, we must have consent. A man does not “marry the person I love”, but rather they marry each other. Vows are made on both sides. They form a legal unity from what each brings.

And that is one reason why children cannot marry. They cannot consent. We recognize that a child lacks adequate cognition and so a child cannot enter an enforceable legal contract.

Pretty funny that he responds to a catchy-but-overbroad characterization of our argument for the right to marriage with an almost identical catchy-but-overbroad characterization of the right to a romantic relationship. Wait a minute, Mr. Vogt — pedophiles are not, and should not be, free to enter into private relationships with whomever they choose! I guess any argument Mr. Vogt might choose to make in defense of any particular romantic relationship is now invalid.

]]>By: CPT_Doomhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-243961
Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:28:00 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-243961Governments recognize marriage because that contract creates a new legal relationship as strong, if not stronger than, a relationship based on blood. By recognizing the relationship the government ensures appropriate distribution of property in the event of death or dissolution of the relationship. These property rights exist whether children result from the marriage or not – or even if children precede the marriage (yes, I’m talking to you Maggie). Were my widowed 72-year-old father to marry tomorrow, his new wife would automatically supersede my sister & I in terms of health decisions, etc.
]]>By: JohnAGJhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/30/53366#comment-243945
Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:46:11 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53366#comment-243945I find Vogt’s statements questionable also in light of the fact that Catholic bishops in Uganda have supported the anti-gay bill there, without Vatican censure, and the Pope has met with Ugandan leaders behind this effort. Apparently in some parts of the world (where they can get away with it) it’s perfectly fine to persecute gays as far as Catholics are concerned, just as long as it’s not on OUR streets (yet) and frighten OUR horses. Third World nations? Meh. Not so important.
]]>